JERUSALEM - The possibility of NATO troops being stationed alongside Israel was raised in discussions between Israel and the Americans and Europeans.
Special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell met on Thursday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and discussed this issue, among others.
This possibility was first raised by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who suggested sending 40,000 troops from European nations.
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Bureau refused to respond on the record to a query on this subject.
A representative stated that “Netanyahu clarified that there has to be an Israeli presence on the border of the future Palestinian state with Jordan, at least for a certain period of time.”
The Palestinians, who would like to internationalize the conflict, have been promoting the initiative.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that the Palestinians hoped to reach agreements about the future Palestinian state by the end of the four months that were allocated to the proximity talks.
Back in December, 2003, the head of the European Parliamentarian Delegation to the Geneva Initiative, a project of the Israeli Left, MP Graham Watson, described the planned armed international force that the U.S., Canada, the EU, the Scandinavian countries, Japan and Australia plan to dispatch to patrol the future borders which will run through the middle of Jerusalem and alongside Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
MP Watson confirmed that Geneva Initiative mandates the creation of an international force which would actively prevent the Israeli army from pursuit of terrorists who escape into “Palestinian territory” since that international force is, according to the Geneva Initiative, designed to protect the “integrity of Palestinian territory.” The good will of all future Israeli governments would be moot.
The intentions of the Palestinian leadership, on the other hand would be critical.
One of the most important lessons of the failure of the Oslo process was that despite the military force at its disposal, the Palestinian Authority has consistently refused to use force in order to prevent any terrorist attacks against the citizens of Israel.
The Geneva Initiative does not address the issue of what will happen if the Palestinian State will prove itself no more inclined to prevent murderous attacks on Israel by the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad or Abbas’s own force, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, than did the Palestinian Authority did under the Oslo Accords? What if the Palestinian State were more successful at smuggling in weapons and missiles than its predecessor?
None of the Geneva Initiative spokespeople were prepared to address that issue.
Under the current situation, Israel can and does exercise its right of self-defense by intervening militarily against the perpetrators of terrorist attacks. Under the Geneva Initiative, this option would require Israel to clash directly and militarily with virtually the entire international community.
According to MP Watson’s plan, An Implementation and Verification Group, made up of Americans, Europeans, Russians, the United Nations and “representatives from the region” (presumably from Arab States), would be charged with defending the territorial integrity of the Palestinian State.
In other words, the very same Palestinian leadership that has been caught in the act of smuggling massive quantities of armaments into its “demilitarized” territory under Oslo would be protected from Israeli military action even if terrorist attacks were to be launched against Israel from Palestinian territory and even if Israeli passenger planes are shot out of the sky by “unofficial” Palestinian missiles.
Read this story at Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Israel and the illusion of international justice
By Gerald Steinberg and Anne Herzberg, NGOMonitor.com
As originally appearing in Haaretz
Speaking at a legal conference on January 4, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak suggested that Israel would benefit from participation in bodies such as the International Criminal Court in order to fight for "its positions and justice." In endorsing Barak's recommendation, a Haaretz editorial ("Join the Court," January 6) contended that such participation would "place Israel on the side of the enlightened nations." Similarly, the argument goes, Israel erred in refusing to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone Commission and the International Court of Justice proceedings on the security barrier.
While surely well-intentioned, in practice this line of thinking is pure folly. The dominance of nondemocratic and Islamic nations in international organs, and the increasing politicization of these bodies, virtually guarantees that no justice will be done when it comes to Israel or even NATO countries. In such morally corrupt frameworks, international law and human rights have become political weapons, disconnected from legitimate judicial processes and legal systems in democratic societies.
The ICJ's handling of the 2004 case regarding Israel's security barrier is a telling example. The suit was initiated by the UN General Assembly at the behest of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. European-funded advocacy groups such as B'Tselem, aided by NGO superpowers Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, were central to this effort.
Legal scholars sharply criticized the court for accepting a predetermined political mandate from the UN and for its breach of procedural protocols in deliberations on the matter. The ICJ's resulting advisory opinion negated Israel's right of self-defense and displayed an utter lack of sympathy for terror victims. Its simplistic and troubling legal analysis clearly reflected the influence of the Arab League and politicized NGOs. Hardly an independent judicial inquiry, this distorted proceeding encouraged subversion of the rule of law, rather than its enforcement, by allowing for political manipulation of the judicial process.
Similar problems plague the ICC. Calls for the creation of an ICC were first made in the late 1980s by Caribbean and Latin American countries seeking international support in trying drug traffickers, and were bolstered by the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the mid-1990s. Following a massive push by NGOs, the ICC statute was finalized in Rome in 1998, covering the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the court began operations in 2002.
Some complain that the ICC in practice has become an "African court" that lets Western democracies off the hook, but this claim is unjustified. Although NGOs pressed for the ICC to have wide-ranging jurisdiction, it was intended to be a court of last resort for the very worst crimes, adjudicating only those cases that could not be fairly tried in national courts due to the lack of a competent judiciary.
From the beginning, Israel strongly backed the idea of an international court based on the Nuremberg precedent. But, as happened with other international legal bodies, the ICC process was co-opted by nondemocratic forces. Arab and Islamic regimes succeeding in changing the court's statute at the last minute to define Israeli settlement activity as an international crime while omitting terrorism as an offense. This overt politicization of the court forced Israel to withdraw its support.
Following the Gaza war, the PLO pressured ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to open a case against Israel, even though "Palestine" is not a state and doing so would be a gross violation of the court's treaty. Moreno-Ocampo has admitted to working closely with the Arab League in this process. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, funded primarily by European governments, is also deeply involved in this one-sided effort, as are Amnesty and HRW.
These same Arab League members have hypocritically and repeatedly offered shelter to indicted war criminal Omar Bashir of Sudan, refusing to hand him over to the court to stand trial. Thus the countries that dominate the UN system use their power to control and manipulate its institutions for their own interests - not in pursuit of universal justice.
The careful balance that Justice Barak developed in Israeli jurisprudence in weighing human rights claims against security needs receives no respect from the Arab League and its NGO allies, whose political demands international institutions are unable or unwilling to resist. Barak's wishful thinking to the contrary, it would have made no difference if Israel had participated in the ICJ case or even the Goldstone mission. The record clearly indicates that any information provided by Israel would have been twisted and discounted to fit predetermined conclusions. Claims that Israeli cooperation could have changed the outcome have no basis.
Refusing to be a party to this sort of legal travesty does not mean Israel is insensitive to international law or human rights, or that the Jewish state does not wish to be a member of the international community. Nor should this principled position be used to claim that Israel is trying to shield itself from critical inquiry - far from it. Israel's Supreme Court is a leading adherent and innovator of international law and is a major proponent of human rights.
To suggest that Israel could exert any influence on bodies where nondemocratic regimes wield excessive power, however, is a pipe dream that has no connection to today's unfortunate reality.
Gerald Steinberg is a professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor; Anne Herzberg is NGO Monitor's legal advisor
As originally appearing in Haaretz
Speaking at a legal conference on January 4, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak suggested that Israel would benefit from participation in bodies such as the International Criminal Court in order to fight for "its positions and justice." In endorsing Barak's recommendation, a Haaretz editorial ("Join the Court," January 6) contended that such participation would "place Israel on the side of the enlightened nations." Similarly, the argument goes, Israel erred in refusing to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone Commission and the International Court of Justice proceedings on the security barrier.
While surely well-intentioned, in practice this line of thinking is pure folly. The dominance of nondemocratic and Islamic nations in international organs, and the increasing politicization of these bodies, virtually guarantees that no justice will be done when it comes to Israel or even NATO countries. In such morally corrupt frameworks, international law and human rights have become political weapons, disconnected from legitimate judicial processes and legal systems in democratic societies.
The ICJ's handling of the 2004 case regarding Israel's security barrier is a telling example. The suit was initiated by the UN General Assembly at the behest of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. European-funded advocacy groups such as B'Tselem, aided by NGO superpowers Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, were central to this effort.
Legal scholars sharply criticized the court for accepting a predetermined political mandate from the UN and for its breach of procedural protocols in deliberations on the matter. The ICJ's resulting advisory opinion negated Israel's right of self-defense and displayed an utter lack of sympathy for terror victims. Its simplistic and troubling legal analysis clearly reflected the influence of the Arab League and politicized NGOs. Hardly an independent judicial inquiry, this distorted proceeding encouraged subversion of the rule of law, rather than its enforcement, by allowing for political manipulation of the judicial process.
Similar problems plague the ICC. Calls for the creation of an ICC were first made in the late 1980s by Caribbean and Latin American countries seeking international support in trying drug traffickers, and were bolstered by the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the mid-1990s. Following a massive push by NGOs, the ICC statute was finalized in Rome in 1998, covering the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the court began operations in 2002.
Some complain that the ICC in practice has become an "African court" that lets Western democracies off the hook, but this claim is unjustified. Although NGOs pressed for the ICC to have wide-ranging jurisdiction, it was intended to be a court of last resort for the very worst crimes, adjudicating only those cases that could not be fairly tried in national courts due to the lack of a competent judiciary.
From the beginning, Israel strongly backed the idea of an international court based on the Nuremberg precedent. But, as happened with other international legal bodies, the ICC process was co-opted by nondemocratic forces. Arab and Islamic regimes succeeding in changing the court's statute at the last minute to define Israeli settlement activity as an international crime while omitting terrorism as an offense. This overt politicization of the court forced Israel to withdraw its support.
Following the Gaza war, the PLO pressured ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to open a case against Israel, even though "Palestine" is not a state and doing so would be a gross violation of the court's treaty. Moreno-Ocampo has admitted to working closely with the Arab League in this process. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, funded primarily by European governments, is also deeply involved in this one-sided effort, as are Amnesty and HRW.
These same Arab League members have hypocritically and repeatedly offered shelter to indicted war criminal Omar Bashir of Sudan, refusing to hand him over to the court to stand trial. Thus the countries that dominate the UN system use their power to control and manipulate its institutions for their own interests - not in pursuit of universal justice.
The careful balance that Justice Barak developed in Israeli jurisprudence in weighing human rights claims against security needs receives no respect from the Arab League and its NGO allies, whose political demands international institutions are unable or unwilling to resist. Barak's wishful thinking to the contrary, it would have made no difference if Israel had participated in the ICJ case or even the Goldstone mission. The record clearly indicates that any information provided by Israel would have been twisted and discounted to fit predetermined conclusions. Claims that Israeli cooperation could have changed the outcome have no basis.
Refusing to be a party to this sort of legal travesty does not mean Israel is insensitive to international law or human rights, or that the Jewish state does not wish to be a member of the international community. Nor should this principled position be used to claim that Israel is trying to shield itself from critical inquiry - far from it. Israel's Supreme Court is a leading adherent and innovator of international law and is a major proponent of human rights.
To suggest that Israel could exert any influence on bodies where nondemocratic regimes wield excessive power, however, is a pipe dream that has no connection to today's unfortunate reality.
Gerald Steinberg is a professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor; Anne Herzberg is NGO Monitor's legal advisor
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: NATO Approves Israeli Inclusion in Naval Maneuvers
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - This week, NATO approved the Israel Navy’s active inclusion in a NATO force patrolling the Mediterranean Sea in the framework of the global war on terror. This is the first open inclusion of its kind between the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and NATO on an operational basis and its timing is particularly important at present, after Turkey canceled the largest aerial exercise of the alliance, which was to have included the participation of the Israel Air Force.
NATO’s Operation Active Endeavour has been operating in the Mediterranean Sea since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. The force is comprised of 10 vessels of different kinds, backed by submarines and aircraft, which work to prevent naval acts of terrorism and arms smuggling. The naval force monitors suspicious ships and, when necessary, raids them. NATO also escorts ships of the alliance until they leave the Mediterranean Sea at the Straits of Gibraltar as there is intelligence information that the ships are at risk. The majority of the ships that make up the force are from the navies of the members of NATO who have a shore on the Mediterranean Sea - Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey, but are also helped by more major navies of NATO in the region.
Israel relayed a request to have an Israeli ship join the force over two years ago, but approval was delayed time after time, and Israel remained outside the multi-national force. The Israeli security establishment believed that the reason, among other things, was the diplomatic sensitivity created in wake of criticism of Israeli’s actions in the Second Lebanon War and in Operation Cast Lead.
The news about the approval to join the special naval force was relayed to Israel Navy Commander Maj. Gen. Eliezer (Cheney) Marom in the course of his visit to the U.S. last week. Maj. Gen. Marom was there to take part in a global meeting of navy commanders.
Sources in the Israeli security establishment affirm that the approval, given at this time, reflects NATO’s esteem for the Israel Navy’s capabilities under Marom’s command, to help prevent international acts of terror. In the framework of this cooperation, an Israeli Navy officer was also stationed in the position of liaison at NATO’s naval headquarters in Naples, Italy. The decision to include a vessel, one of the Israel Navy’s most advanced missile boats that will join NATO’s active task force, is expected to be made soon.
Mark of Esteem
The idea of having Israel join NATO had been raised occasionally in recent decades as part of the thinking about security guarantees for Israel - and no less, in order to acquire a sense of security and belonging to the world of its citizens - in the framework of a comprehensive arrangement in the Middle East. Today, this idea seems distant, as does a comprehensive arrangement. In Israel’s international situation today, with legitimacy for its military actions shrinking, the inclusion of an Israeli ship in the alliance’s naval police force is greeted as big news in Israel
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - This week, NATO approved the Israel Navy’s active inclusion in a NATO force patrolling the Mediterranean Sea in the framework of the global war on terror. This is the first open inclusion of its kind between the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and NATO on an operational basis and its timing is particularly important at present, after Turkey canceled the largest aerial exercise of the alliance, which was to have included the participation of the Israel Air Force.
NATO’s Operation Active Endeavour has been operating in the Mediterranean Sea since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. The force is comprised of 10 vessels of different kinds, backed by submarines and aircraft, which work to prevent naval acts of terrorism and arms smuggling. The naval force monitors suspicious ships and, when necessary, raids them. NATO also escorts ships of the alliance until they leave the Mediterranean Sea at the Straits of Gibraltar as there is intelligence information that the ships are at risk. The majority of the ships that make up the force are from the navies of the members of NATO who have a shore on the Mediterranean Sea - Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey, but are also helped by more major navies of NATO in the region.
Israel relayed a request to have an Israeli ship join the force over two years ago, but approval was delayed time after time, and Israel remained outside the multi-national force. The Israeli security establishment believed that the reason, among other things, was the diplomatic sensitivity created in wake of criticism of Israeli’s actions in the Second Lebanon War and in Operation Cast Lead.
The news about the approval to join the special naval force was relayed to Israel Navy Commander Maj. Gen. Eliezer (Cheney) Marom in the course of his visit to the U.S. last week. Maj. Gen. Marom was there to take part in a global meeting of navy commanders.
Sources in the Israeli security establishment affirm that the approval, given at this time, reflects NATO’s esteem for the Israel Navy’s capabilities under Marom’s command, to help prevent international acts of terror. In the framework of this cooperation, an Israeli Navy officer was also stationed in the position of liaison at NATO’s naval headquarters in Naples, Italy. The decision to include a vessel, one of the Israel Navy’s most advanced missile boats that will join NATO’s active task force, is expected to be made soon.
Mark of Esteem
The idea of having Israel join NATO had been raised occasionally in recent decades as part of the thinking about security guarantees for Israel - and no less, in order to acquire a sense of security and belonging to the world of its citizens - in the framework of a comprehensive arrangement in the Middle East. Today, this idea seems distant, as does a comprehensive arrangement. In Israel’s international situation today, with legitimacy for its military actions shrinking, the inclusion of an Israeli ship in the alliance’s naval police force is greeted as big news in Israel
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: US Congressional Watchdog: Saudi Arabia: Remain Top Funders Of Al Qaida
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The United States has determined that Saudi Arabia continues to be the leading source of funding to Al Qaida.
A report by Congress has concluded that Saudi Arabia has been sending funds to both Al Qaida and Taliban in what has helped finance the war against NATO in Afghanistan.
The report by the Government Accountability Office said the Saudi government did not appear to be involved in the funding.
"It is vital that the U.S. demand more from the Saudi government in
cutting off the money flow to the Islamist extremist network," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said.
GAO has determined that Riyad has failed to stop the flow of funds from individuals and charities to Al Qaida and Taliban. The report said the Saudi funding continued amid the kingdom's crackdown on Al Qaida and counter-insurgency to neighboring Yemen.
"They are a top source of funding for Al Qaida and associated terror groups, such as the Taliban," GAO said on Sept. 29.
The GAO said Saudis and other Gulf Arabs were the chief source of funding to Taliban. The report said couriers were transporting cash from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council states to Afghanistan and Pakistan for Taliban.
The report also warned of Saudi Arabia's policy to rehabilitate Al Qaida insurgents. GAO reported a 20 percent recidivism rate of the 4,300 Al Qaida operatives who went through the re-education program.
"Saudi officials acknowledge such cases illustrate the difficulties
associated with assessing which participants should be released," GAO said.
The congressional watchdog recommended that the White House draft performance targets for Saudi Arabia in the war against Al Qaida. Over the last five years, several prominent of Congress have sought to link U.S. arms sales to Riyad to its commitment to block funding to Al Qaida.
This report was issued at exactly the same time that the current US Administration places all of its prestige behind the resumption of middle east peace talks, while ignoring the crucial role played by Saudi Arabia, which acts as the titular leader of the Arab League, remaining at war with Israel and positioning itself asthe major funder of Arab terrorist organizations.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - The United States has determined that Saudi Arabia continues to be the leading source of funding to Al Qaida.
A report by Congress has concluded that Saudi Arabia has been sending funds to both Al Qaida and Taliban in what has helped finance the war against NATO in Afghanistan.
The report by the Government Accountability Office said the Saudi government did not appear to be involved in the funding.
"It is vital that the U.S. demand more from the Saudi government in
cutting off the money flow to the Islamist extremist network," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said.
GAO has determined that Riyad has failed to stop the flow of funds from individuals and charities to Al Qaida and Taliban. The report said the Saudi funding continued amid the kingdom's crackdown on Al Qaida and counter-insurgency to neighboring Yemen.
"They are a top source of funding for Al Qaida and associated terror groups, such as the Taliban," GAO said on Sept. 29.
The GAO said Saudis and other Gulf Arabs were the chief source of funding to Taliban. The report said couriers were transporting cash from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council states to Afghanistan and Pakistan for Taliban.
The report also warned of Saudi Arabia's policy to rehabilitate Al Qaida insurgents. GAO reported a 20 percent recidivism rate of the 4,300 Al Qaida operatives who went through the re-education program.
"Saudi officials acknowledge such cases illustrate the difficulties
associated with assessing which participants should be released," GAO said.
The congressional watchdog recommended that the White House draft performance targets for Saudi Arabia in the war against Al Qaida. Over the last five years, several prominent of Congress have sought to link U.S. arms sales to Riyad to its commitment to block funding to Al Qaida.
This report was issued at exactly the same time that the current US Administration places all of its prestige behind the resumption of middle east peace talks, while ignoring the crucial role played by Saudi Arabia, which acts as the titular leader of the Arab League, remaining at war with Israel and positioning itself asthe major funder of Arab terrorist organizations.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Saudis Said to Increase Help to Al Qaeda
by David Bedein
In this photo released by Saudi Press Agency, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, left, meets Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, at the Red Sea city of Jiddah, Saudi Arabia on Aug. 28. A recent report by the institute for Gulf Affairs shows that the Saudi royal family may be increasing its aid to the terrorist organization al-Qaida. (Associated Press)
JERUSALEM - Exactly eight years after al-Qaida terrorists dispatched 18 Saudis to crash American commercial airlines into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the The Institute for Gulf Affairs has published a study that accuses the Saudi royal family of increasing aid to al-Qaida terror
The study asserts that the Saudi royal family has encouraged young Saudis to fight Islamic wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. “The Saudi government has been contributing to the increase in terrorist activities in the years since 9/11 [Sept. 11, 2001],” the report, titled “The Saudi Terror Problem on the Rise Since September 11,” said. The report, citing open sources, said that up to 60 percent of foreign Islamist fighters in Iraq were Saudi nationals. The percentage was said to reflect Saudi policy to destabilize Iraq, dominated by the Shi'ite community.
“The main reason for the high number of Saudi suicide bombers and terrorists in Iraq is the Saudi official policy that supports instability in Iraq,” the report said. “In addition to Saudi officials, major Saudi clerics are part of the recruitment and funding of the insurgency in Iraq. Wahabi clerics, both working for the government or those with close ties with the Saudi ruling family, play a leading role in sustaining the flow of hundreds of Saudi suicide bombers to Iraq and in sending millions of dollars to support them.”
The report also says that Saudi Arabia has dispatched fighters to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the war against NATO. The report cited support by leading Saudi clerics for Taliban as well as fundraising for the Afghan rebel movement in Saudi Arabia.
“Privately obtained reports by the Gulf Institute confirm that members of the Afghan and Pakistani expatriate community in Saudi Arabia are raising funds for the Taliban inside the kingdom,” the report said. “Meetings frequently take place in the central and western regions of Saudi Arabia on farms outside Riyad and other cities. Al Qaida and Taliban recruitment networks in Saudi Arabia remain intact, as indicated by the arrival of dozens of new Saudi fighters who join the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“In addition to receiving fresh supplies of Saudi fighters, al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan receive millions of dollars in funds from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar,” the report added. “Saudi Arabia has not merely contributed fighters, it has also contributed financing to the Taliban.”
The institute study concludes that Saudi Arabia has failed to crack down on al-Qaida and Taliban recruitment and fundraising networks despite Riyad's alliance with the United States. Washington, which approved more than $10 billion in arms deals with Riyad in 2008, has been the leading weapons supplier to Saudi Arabia.
“The United States also failed to persuade or pressure the Saudi government to deal with the root causes of terrorism and extremism,” the report said. “Instead, the U.S. gave the Saudi ruling family unconditional support, including training hundreds of its security forces by U.S. trainers, and providing state-of-the-art technology, which is used to silence political and democratic opponents.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
In this photo released by Saudi Press Agency, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, left, meets Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, at the Red Sea city of Jiddah, Saudi Arabia on Aug. 28. A recent report by the institute for Gulf Affairs shows that the Saudi royal family may be increasing its aid to the terrorist organization al-Qaida. (Associated Press)
JERUSALEM - Exactly eight years after al-Qaida terrorists dispatched 18 Saudis to crash American commercial airlines into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the The Institute for Gulf Affairs has published a study that accuses the Saudi royal family of increasing aid to al-Qaida terror
The study asserts that the Saudi royal family has encouraged young Saudis to fight Islamic wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. “The Saudi government has been contributing to the increase in terrorist activities in the years since 9/11 [Sept. 11, 2001],” the report, titled “The Saudi Terror Problem on the Rise Since September 11,” said. The report, citing open sources, said that up to 60 percent of foreign Islamist fighters in Iraq were Saudi nationals. The percentage was said to reflect Saudi policy to destabilize Iraq, dominated by the Shi'ite community.
“The main reason for the high number of Saudi suicide bombers and terrorists in Iraq is the Saudi official policy that supports instability in Iraq,” the report said. “In addition to Saudi officials, major Saudi clerics are part of the recruitment and funding of the insurgency in Iraq. Wahabi clerics, both working for the government or those with close ties with the Saudi ruling family, play a leading role in sustaining the flow of hundreds of Saudi suicide bombers to Iraq and in sending millions of dollars to support them.”
The report also says that Saudi Arabia has dispatched fighters to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the war against NATO. The report cited support by leading Saudi clerics for Taliban as well as fundraising for the Afghan rebel movement in Saudi Arabia.
“Privately obtained reports by the Gulf Institute confirm that members of the Afghan and Pakistani expatriate community in Saudi Arabia are raising funds for the Taliban inside the kingdom,” the report said. “Meetings frequently take place in the central and western regions of Saudi Arabia on farms outside Riyad and other cities. Al Qaida and Taliban recruitment networks in Saudi Arabia remain intact, as indicated by the arrival of dozens of new Saudi fighters who join the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“In addition to receiving fresh supplies of Saudi fighters, al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan receive millions of dollars in funds from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar,” the report added. “Saudi Arabia has not merely contributed fighters, it has also contributed financing to the Taliban.”
The institute study concludes that Saudi Arabia has failed to crack down on al-Qaida and Taliban recruitment and fundraising networks despite Riyad's alliance with the United States. Washington, which approved more than $10 billion in arms deals with Riyad in 2008, has been the leading weapons supplier to Saudi Arabia.
“The United States also failed to persuade or pressure the Saudi government to deal with the root causes of terrorism and extremism,” the report said. “Instead, the U.S. gave the Saudi ruling family unconditional support, including training hundreds of its security forces by U.S. trainers, and providing state-of-the-art technology, which is used to silence political and democratic opponents.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Obama Administration Hampers Israeli F-35 Purchase
by David Bedein
The Obama administration has begun imposing obstacles on Israeli efforts to procure American-built jet fighters.
According to Middle East Newsline, Obama administration sources said the White House has drafted measures that could prevent Israel from procuring fighters, such as the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
They said the administration plans to require Israel to obtain special permission from the Defense Department and State Department before acquiring the JSF.
“The measures would make it more difficult for non-NATO allies to acquire JSF,” a source said.
Under the proposals, the Pentagon would order modifications of the JSF to provide the aircraft with nuclear strike capabilities. The sources said such a capability would provide the Pentagon with access to money to maintain and develop the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
“Once JSF obtains nuclear strike capability, there becomes a problem with exports,” the source said. “NATO countries would have less of a problem; non-NATO countries would need special exemptions.”
The sources said Lockheed Martin would not be instructed to develop both nuclear- and non-nuclear models of the F-35 for the first stage of production. Israel has sought to become among the first export clients of JSF.
Over the last few months, the administration has rejected a series of Israeli requests regarding modifications of the F-35. They included Israeli electronic warfare systems and acquisition of U.S. software codes that would allow Israel to repair the aircraft's central computer. The U.S. refusal meant that the Israel Air Force would be forced to send the F-35 to the United States for any repairs, a process that could take months.
The administration has also been resisting Israeli requests for technical data on the new F-15SE (Silent Eagle) fighter. The sources said the State Department has been delaying Israeli requests for pre-export licenses required to examine the next generation F-15, which incorporates certain stealth characteristics.
The sources said the administration has not approved the new F-15 for the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. They said this could prevent Israel from using U.S. military aid to purchase the aircraft from Boeing.
“This is a legal issue,” a source said. “The F-15SE might not qualify for FMS.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
The Obama administration has begun imposing obstacles on Israeli efforts to procure American-built jet fighters.
According to Middle East Newsline, Obama administration sources said the White House has drafted measures that could prevent Israel from procuring fighters, such as the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
They said the administration plans to require Israel to obtain special permission from the Defense Department and State Department before acquiring the JSF.
“The measures would make it more difficult for non-NATO allies to acquire JSF,” a source said.
Under the proposals, the Pentagon would order modifications of the JSF to provide the aircraft with nuclear strike capabilities. The sources said such a capability would provide the Pentagon with access to money to maintain and develop the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
“Once JSF obtains nuclear strike capability, there becomes a problem with exports,” the source said. “NATO countries would have less of a problem; non-NATO countries would need special exemptions.”
The sources said Lockheed Martin would not be instructed to develop both nuclear- and non-nuclear models of the F-35 for the first stage of production. Israel has sought to become among the first export clients of JSF.
Over the last few months, the administration has rejected a series of Israeli requests regarding modifications of the F-35. They included Israeli electronic warfare systems and acquisition of U.S. software codes that would allow Israel to repair the aircraft's central computer. The U.S. refusal meant that the Israel Air Force would be forced to send the F-35 to the United States for any repairs, a process that could take months.
The administration has also been resisting Israeli requests for technical data on the new F-15SE (Silent Eagle) fighter. The sources said the State Department has been delaying Israeli requests for pre-export licenses required to examine the next generation F-15, which incorporates certain stealth characteristics.
The sources said the administration has not approved the new F-15 for the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. They said this could prevent Israel from using U.S. military aid to purchase the aircraft from Boeing.
“This is a legal issue,” a source said. “The F-15SE might not qualify for FMS.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Report: Turkey to Break with NATO on Iran
by David Bedein
A report issued by the Washington Institute says Turkey has moved steadily away from its NATO allies and toward Iran, Russia and Syria.
The report, titled “The AKP’s Foreign Policy: The Misnomer of Neo-Ottomanism” and authored by senior researcher Soner Cagaptay, says Turkey’s new foreign policy - led by the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP according to its Turkish initials - has come at the expense of Ankara’s relations with Israel, the European Union and the United States.
“Ankara will likely opt out of a NATO consensus on Iran, clash with the United States on how to handle Hamas and Hezbollah, and disagree with the EU and the U.S. on Russia,” the report said.
The report says Turkey has developed friendlier relations with Russia and the Islamic world than with the West. Mr. Cagaptay cited Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria as examples of Turkey’s growing ties in the Islamic world.
“The AKP’s foreign policy has a weakness for Arab Islamists and their causes,” the report said. “The policy shows empathy towards Middle East Muslims and Islamists, though the same empathy is missing towards non-Muslims and non-Middle Eastern issues. Business deals play an important role in sustaining the stronger ties that Turkey is developing with Russia, the Persian Gulf states, Sudan and Iran.”
At the same time, Turkey refused to support Georgia during its brief war with Russia in 2008. The report said Turkey has also ignored its Central Asian neighbors, such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, to focus on relations with Russia.
Mr. Cagaptay wrote AKP, most of whose leaders speak Arabic and were educated in Muslim schools, has divided the world in religious blocs - either Christian or Muslim. AKP, which won power in 2002 and dominates parliament, has avoided criticism of Iran’s nuclear program while maintaining ties with Tehran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.
“It [AKP] is pro-Hamas, pro-Syria, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Qatar, pro-Saudi,” the report said. “The AKP views the world as composed of religious blocs, and this disposition colors its views of the Middle East and the world.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
A report issued by the Washington Institute says Turkey has moved steadily away from its NATO allies and toward Iran, Russia and Syria.
The report, titled “The AKP’s Foreign Policy: The Misnomer of Neo-Ottomanism” and authored by senior researcher Soner Cagaptay, says Turkey’s new foreign policy - led by the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP according to its Turkish initials - has come at the expense of Ankara’s relations with Israel, the European Union and the United States.
“Ankara will likely opt out of a NATO consensus on Iran, clash with the United States on how to handle Hamas and Hezbollah, and disagree with the EU and the U.S. on Russia,” the report said.
The report says Turkey has developed friendlier relations with Russia and the Islamic world than with the West. Mr. Cagaptay cited Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria as examples of Turkey’s growing ties in the Islamic world.
“The AKP’s foreign policy has a weakness for Arab Islamists and their causes,” the report said. “The policy shows empathy towards Middle East Muslims and Islamists, though the same empathy is missing towards non-Muslims and non-Middle Eastern issues. Business deals play an important role in sustaining the stronger ties that Turkey is developing with Russia, the Persian Gulf states, Sudan and Iran.”
At the same time, Turkey refused to support Georgia during its brief war with Russia in 2008. The report said Turkey has also ignored its Central Asian neighbors, such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, to focus on relations with Russia.
Mr. Cagaptay wrote AKP, most of whose leaders speak Arabic and were educated in Muslim schools, has divided the world in religious blocs - either Christian or Muslim. AKP, which won power in 2002 and dominates parliament, has avoided criticism of Iran’s nuclear program while maintaining ties with Tehran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.
“It [AKP] is pro-Hamas, pro-Syria, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Qatar, pro-Saudi,” the report said. “The AKP views the world as composed of religious blocs, and this disposition colors its views of the Middle East and the world.”
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
